Tier 2 local authorities across North Yorkshire will also be dissolved. Other councils affected are Craven District Council,  Hambleton District Council, Harrogate Borough Council, Richmondshire District Council, Ryedale District Council and Selby District Council.

The local government reorganisation will also see the end of North Yorkshire County and York City Councils.

The race will now be on to be the last leader and mayor of Scarborough Borough Council.

The wholly incompetent purveyors of poor investment decisions (otherwise known as councillors) have left large concrete slabs in prime tourist venues and other prime tourist sites decaying and undeveloped for decades.

The last residents of the Clown Hall will be fighting like rats in a sack to be the last name on the hallowed boards of the great and the crud that once included Scarborough’s celebrity paedophile ring; Savile and Jaconelli.

It is expected that some councillors will retire before the local government reorganisation so they can be awarded Honorary Aldermen status for their length of service and similarly get their name up in lights.

Six figure salaried Senior Officers across North Yorkshire will also be looking to secure their gold-plated pensions pots, lucrative early retirement on an unaffordable final salary pension scheme or formulating plans to land a money-spinning new job to swell their already bulging pension pots before retirement.

How will Scarborough’s Senior Officers fare in the race for a new job given their accounts haven’t been signed off for five years? With the reorganisation likely less than two years away it looks like they never will be signed off. With the record of poor service delivered to the people of the Borough will anyone offer them a job cleaning loos?

• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, clarifying and expanding upon last weeks’ article regarding ICO data protection registration (or not, as the case seems to be).

~~~~~

In my article of Friday 8th February 2019, I pointed out that, according to the ICO website, Scarborough Borough Council appeared to have opted for a Tier 1 (£40) data protection registration when, as a public authority employing more than 250 people, surely a Tier 3 registration (£2,900) should have been declared and paid?

One switched-on reader has emailed me to point out that SBC’s Tier 1 registration referenced only the data protection service for the Council’s Electoral Register, and it may possibly be the case (may it not?) that SBC had registered the Council (body corporate) separately under Tier 3, in full compliance with the legal requirements. fair point.

The ICO website search facility does indeed disclose a second registration for SBC – but not for the Council (the body corporate). Remarkably, that second registration is in the name of Mr Tom FOX (would you believe?) – but the record shows that this second registration is also Tier 1. Hmmm. Is Mr Tom FOX Scarborough Borough Council? Possibly not.

[Source: ICO website search for ‘Scarborough Borough Council’]

However, there is no registration at Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3 for Scarborough Borough Council (the body corporate). Someone appears to have been remiss.

Comparisons with our neighbouring electoral authorities shed some light.

To our south, East Riding of Yorkshire Council maintains two registrations – one under Tier 1 (for their Electoral Register) and a second, for the body corporate, under Tier 3, as required. Bravo!

[Source: ICO website search for ‘East Riding of Yorkshire Council’]

To our north, Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council maintains only a Tier 3 registration. This would suggest that the Council’s Electoral Register is unprotected by Tier 1 of the ICO data protection program. The personal data of over 100,000 electors is not covered by the program.

[Source: ICO website search for ‘Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council’]

As for Ryedale District Council, our immediate neighbour to the west, here again we find two registrations – Tier 1, in respect of its Electoral Register, quite correctly, and a second Tier 1 in respect of the Council itself. I struggle to believe that Ryedale District Council, a public authority, has less than ten employees – which is the limit for Tier 1.

[Source: ICO website search for ‘Ryedale District Council’]

So, according to the ICO website, of the quartet of electoral authorities in our immediate area, only East Riding of Yorkshire Council is presently in tune with the legal requirements.

One out of four is not acceptable. Three out of four have failed.

And three out of four Monitoring Officers have failed to pick it up. The ICO, too. This is not impressive.

If you or I operated four vehicles, only one of which was compliant with the legal requirements, we would be well advised to anticipate prosecution – and we would be unlikely to turn out to have been unnecessarily pessimistic.

Do you imagine that three out of four of our immediate area’s Councils will be prosecuted? We are, of course, all equal under the law.

[As a matter of interest, Craven District Council, Hambleton District Council, Harrogate Borough Council, Richmondshire District Council, Selby District Council, City of York Council and North Yorkshire County Council have all registered for data protection with the ICO in full compliance with legal requirement. Only Scarborough Borough Council, Ryedale District Council and Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council are presently in default.]

The Leader of Ryedale District Council, Councillor Linda COWLING and FIVE of her Tory Councillor colleagues have defected from the Conservative Group to the Independents, thus depriving the hitherto dominant party of its majority in Council.

The other defecting Councillors are John WINDRESS (the incumbent Chair of the Planning Committee) and four former Chairs of the Council – Councillor David CUSSONS M.B.E., Councillor Janet FRANK, Councillor Eric HOPE, and Councillor John RAPER. All six will now sit as Independents. The resignations follow the suspension of Cllrs COWLING, CUSSONS and RAPER by the Thirsk & Malton Conservative Association (T&MCA), for reasons undisclosed.

The party political pecking order will now read:

• Independents – 14
• Conservatives – 7
• Liberals – 4
• New Independent Group – 3
• Liberal Democrats – 2

At the time of publication, the Enquirer has seen no public statement on behalf of the six defectors collectively, though Councillor Janet FRANK has been quoted as stating:

“We have reached this decision individually over time for numerous reasons. The final decision by so many councillors to leave at once, triggered by the suspension of Cllr Cussons and then Cllr Cowling, and the refusal of the association to give a reason for these unexpected suspensions has been the final straw in a total breakdown of communication between the group and the association officers. I look forward to being an Independent and continuing to represent the Dales ward.”

Similarly, Councillor Denis CUSSONS M.B.E. told the press:

“As a long-standing councillor of 22 years on RDC and lifelong Conservative party member, I have not taken the decision lightly to become Independent, but I feel let down by the association, who have not given me any reason for my suspension and have created irreconcilable differences between some members and themselves for a long time now.”

Staff sources are suggesting that the exodus is not unrelated to persistence unrest over allegations of a bullying culture within the senior echelons of the Council.

Be that as it may, this mass defection – only three weeks short of the North Yorlshire County Council elections – will be a bitter pill for the Conservatives, who are facing crises in two neighbouring Councils.

• East Riding of Yorkshire Council Leader Councillor Stephen PARNABY [Con.] faces mounting allegations of serious improproiety in relation to Planning matters

and

• Scarborough Borough Council Leader Councillor Derek BASTIMAN [Con.] and his entire Cabinet (75% Tory, 25% closet-Tory) are facing a Vote of No Confidence following successful similar Motions at Whitby and Filey Town Councils.

There are also reports of unrest in the Tory stronghold of Hambleton District Council, following concerns about the massive salary increases awarded to senior Officers.

Incumbent County Councillors defending slender majorities in the forthcoming election – like Whitby/Streonshalh County Councillor Joe PLANT [Con.] (present majority 67, reduced from 364 at the previous election) – will find today’s news no source of comfort at all.

~~~~~

Sir,

Ryedale District Council

While there are clearly a number of worrying issues at Ryedale District Council, an important problem is bullying and harassment. I reported a blatant case of bullying to the Chief Executive, Janet Waggott, last year. Her response was that she was unable to do anything about my report. I subsequently submitted a formal complaint about her lack of action and she told me I did not have a complaint and if I did, there would be no point in going to the Local Government Ombudsman as they do not deal with complaints regarding personnel matters. She concluded by informing me that she would not be responding to any further correspondence that I may submit on this matter.

Nevertheless, I did go to the Ombudsman, but they just confirmed the fact that I did not have a valid complaint for them to deal with as it was a personnel matter that I was complaining about.

Since then I have investigated the issue of bullying at Ryedale District Council with staff and ex-members of staff and have found it to be extensive, current and to have been on-going for a number of years.

There have been cases where management have contrived to construct cases against certain members of staff who have then felt pressurised to leave. Sometimes they are obliged to sign “gagging orders” in order to access any redundancy money and to ensure that their stories of bullying at Ryedale remain undisclosed.

I have written to the local press on this issue and have asked public questions at Full Council meetings and the Leader of the Council has been informed of the extensive and on-going bullying: all to no avail. It would appear that the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive are acting in concert on this issue, perhaps not wishing to confront it as it appears to be so widespread and possibly entrenched in the culture of the organisation.

There are other issues of concern. Over the period 2009-10 to 2014-15 Ms Waggott has presided over a near 20% reduction in the workforce and has expended almost £1m on the use of consultants.

In addition, the last Director took redundancy on vastly enhanced terms to those that would be offered to the rest of the workforce (excluding the Chief Executive). His departure was sold on the basis of a cost saving exercise, with his post being filled internally. This duly occurred via a highly irregular recruitment process. Subsequently the vacancy on the senior management team was filled internally, thus not saving any money at all.

The latest exercise has been to get consultants in, at great expense, and have everyone apply for their own jobs (or any other job that they may feel like applying for). The applicants are interviewed by the consultant only. Success is measured by the applicant showing evidence of certain desired behaviours. This process is likely to result in another fourteen staff leaving. The process of course, does not mean that the Chief Executive or members of the senior management team had to undergo any form of assessment by external consultants as they were not included in the process.

However the same consultant interviewed the internal applicants for the vacant directors post and the successful applicant was the same person who engaged the consultant, over a year ago, to carry out the current restructuring process.

This is a council where bullying and harassment appears to be widespread and has been on-going for a number of years and the Leader and Chief Executive appear powerless to deal with it. As a result, I would imagine that staff morale is at a very low ebb. In addition, certain experienced key members of staff have left and found jobs with new employers. The Head of Paid Service has not shown a duty of care to those staff who have been bullied and harassed and the Leader of the Council would appear not to have held the Chief Executive to account over this, despite being aware that bullying has been occurring. Extensive “cronyism” forms a part of the processes at Ryedale District Council. This is evidenced by the actions over the remuneration of the former director along with the subsequent filling of the vacancy on the senior management team and the exclusion of the senior management team and above from the recent restructuring process.

David Summers

David SUMMERS, Ryedale. 1st February 2017.

Following FOIA disclosures regarding Councillors who did not pay their Council Tax without recourse to enforcement procedures at;

• Richmondshire District Council

• Hambleton District Council

• East Lindsey District Council

• North East Lincolnshire Council

• Hambleton District Council

• Selby District Council

• Hull City Council

• Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council

• East Riding of Yorkshire Council

• Middlesbrough Council

Ryedale District Council (RDC) is the next Council to provide a response to one of a series of identical Freedom of Information requests, reluctantly and following an Appeal for Internal Review, in the following terms:

For each of the financial years 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 until the date of your response:

(1) which RDC Councillors have been the subject of recovery action, either in the form of demands sent by letter or email, or by court action. Please specify which type of recovery action, where applicable.

(2) which RDC Councillors have been barred from participating in voting on budgetary decisions, contingent upon Council Tax arrears of two months or more.

In response to identical questions, other Councils have relied upon the view that this information, insofar as it refers to individuals who are no longer serving Councillors, is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) (personal Information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).  This is because the information constitutes personal data as defined in the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and disclosing it would  breach the fair processing principle set out in the DPA.

However, Ryedale District Council, though confirming that no summonses to court were served on any elected members in the financial years 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14, 2014/15 and/or 2015/2016, and no Councillors were barred from participating in budgetary decisions, has nevertheless seen fit to disclose the identity of one former Councillor against whom two Reminders and one Final Notice were served – for £113.28, £250.00 and £875.00 respectively.

It is not normally the policy of the North Yorks Enquirer to report on the conduct of individuals who no longer hold public office; however, in the present case, former Councillor Peter WALKER [Ind.], though no longer a member of Ryedale District Council (having failed to achieve re-election in May 2015) clearly continues to be engaged in public service. Thus, it is clearly in the public interest to disclose his identity and Ryedale District Council must be applauded for its transparency.

• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, reporting on some very suspect polling practices in Polling Stations in the Thirsk & Malton constituency.

~~~~~

Reports have been coming in throughout the day from Polling Stations in the Thirsk & Malton constituency to the effect that ballot-boxes for the Parliamenary General Election have not been sealed in the approved manner (with uniquely numbered special seals), but have been closed with ordinary tie-wraps.

This is deeply disturbing. Many people are aware of a simple ‘trick’ with the tip of a small electrical screw-driver (or similar object) to release the ‘ratchet’, so that the tail of the tie-wrap can be withdrawn, without damage, and re-used. Alternatively, any would-be ‘vote-tamperer’ could simply snip the tie-wrap and replace it with a new one, which can be picked up at any hardware store.

Clearly, this leaves the ballot-papers in an unacceptably insecure situation.

Equally clearly, it must be brought to the attention of the Thirsk & Malton Returning Officer Janet WAGGOTT – and, of course, to the Electoral Commission.

In one Polling Station, a Polling Officer told our source that it was not a problem as she had some “spare seals” in her pocket. This suggests that the option was there all along to use the correct seals in the first place.

So why were eminently removable/replaceable tie-wraps used? A suspicious mind could readily provide plausible speculation.

Confirmation that tie-wraps have been used in no less than seven Polling Stations checked during the course of the evening compounds the suspicions. It is almost as though a systematic plan has been implemented to render the ballot-boxes open to tampering during the period between the closure of the Polling Stations (at 10:00pm) and arrival at the count.

If it should turn out that the tie-wrapping of ballot-boxes has extended throughout the constituency, this may raise the spectre of the Thirsk & Malton election being nullified, with the prospect of a re-run in a couple of months time.

• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, updating readers on the Rydale District Council (RDC) response to my Formal Request for an investigation into the discrepancies in the Register of Interests of Councillor Lindsay BURR [Ind.] – also a North Yorkshire County Councillor, where the same discrepancies have emerged in her Register of Interests.

~~~~~

Readers may have noticed my recent article “County & District Councillor’s Register Of Interests”, published on 22nd February 2015.

Before I proceed, one short paragraph from that article bears repetition:

• “NYCC’s Monitoring Officer Barry KHAN has acknowledged my request (indicating that “this is a matter solely for the police to investigate as it is not within the remit of the Standards Committee to investigate potentially criminal offences”).”

Moving on; I have since learned that the Monitoring Officer for Ryedale District Council (RDC) is one Anthony WINSHIP, with whom I have enjoyed an exchange of correspondence. Anthony takes a different view . . .

I will not bore readers with the entirety of my email alerting RDC to the discrepancies in Councillor Lindsay BURR’s Register of Interests, from which are absent two companies in which she holds an interest. Suffice it to say that the sharp end of my email to him reads:

• “I now lodge a Formal Request for a thoroughgoing and impartial investigation of Councillor Lindsay BURR’s Register of Interests, and where it is found that disclosable interests have not been duly declared, a Formal Complaint under the terms of the Councillor’s Code of Conduct and an immediate referral both to the RDC Standards Committee and to the North Yorkshire Police.”
  

To repeat; a Formal Request for an investigation, to be followed – only if the investigation exposes evidence – by a Formal Complaint and a referral to the North Yorkshire Police.

RDC Monitoring Officer Anthony WINSHIP has now provided his response to my Formal Request.

Either he did not understand the caveat expressed above, or he chooses not to do so. In any event, he has chosen to treat my request as a Formal Complaint – which it clearly was not, at least until an investigation had been undertaken, which it has not.  I will reproduce his response in full presently, at the foot of this article.

But first let me draw readers attention to two of Anthony WINSHIP’s ill-judged remarks:

• (x) It is accepted that Intuitions Limited should have been disclosed on the register of interests since Councillor Burr is a remunerated director. Councillor Burr has therefore updated her register of interests form. [my emphasis]

“Should have been disclosed” and was not. Case closed. Guilty – as not charged.

In plain language, “You are absolutely right, Nigel – Councillor Lindsay BURR has broken the law”.

and

• “Having carefully considered your complaint the facts of this case do not warrant an investigation.” [prima facie evidence notwithstanding]
  

Taking the second of these first, can any reader explain to me why Anthony WINSHIP has interpreted my Formal Request for an investigation as a Formal Complaint? He surely is able to distinguish between the two.

In my view, he has done so to evade the rigours of a full investigation, so that he and the (so-called) Independent Person can boot the matter into the long grass – at least until after the elections. The facts of this case are a matter of public record. Anthony WINSHIP could investigate them in five minutes – as I did.

Yet (returning to the first of his remarks cited above), Anthony WINSHIP has been forced to concede that Councillor Lindsay BURR’s pecuniary interest in Intuitions Ltd should have been disclosed by her – and was not.

In plain language, she broke the law, and Anthony WINSHIP has admitted it.

However, Anthony WINSHIP concludes his indefensible decision to throw out my Formal Request (in WINSHIP-speak, “complaint”) by stating:

• “The reasons for this decision is that it is not considered to be an appropriate use of the District Councils resources to investigate this matter any further because the omissions have been remedied by updating the register of interests.
• Council Officers will not therefore be referring this case to North Yorkshire Police as you request.”

In my view, Anthony WINSHIP’s decision that, though he concedes that Councillor Lindsay BURR has indeed committed a criminal breach of the Localism Act 2011, the fact that she has since rectified her criminal omissions (I would submit, solely because I raised these queries – in good time for the coming elections) exonerates her criminality completely.

This is closely analogous to a motorist being pulled over for speeding – then escaping prosecution on the spurious grounds that, having now been stopped by the Police, the motorist is now stationary – and therefore no longer speeding at all!

I will leave you with the following tour de farce, quoted directly from Anthony WINSHIP’s response document:

• (vi) The format of the register of interests form adopted by Ryedale District Council on 12 July 2012 is one of the most detailed forms for any Council in the North Yorkshire area. If you compare it with other Councils in North Yorkshire you will see that Ryedale District Council has the highest level of disclosure. Ryedale District Council took this decision to seek to maintain the highest possible standards of ethical conduct.

One of “the highest possible standards of ethical conduct” that North Yorkshire has to offer, eh?

In my opinion – and it is, of course, merely an opinion (though who knows whether or not one may safely continue to presume that the laws of the land prevail and our rights to an opinion remain secure?) – RDC’s ethical standard is more like a licence to break the law with total impunity.

As for the remainder of North Yorkshire . . .

Finally, one wonders whether or not Councillor Lindsay BURR will take the view that, though Anthony WINSHIP’s white-wash passes for damage limitation, he may have inadvertently hindered her re-election prospects. Hmmm. This one could run and run.

~~~~~

Here follows Anthony WINSHIPS’s ‘11717 Final Draft.pdf’ – I expect the earlier versions were even more full of holes:

• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, reporting on some apparent discrepancies relating to the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 on the part of a rather high-profile Ryedale District Councillor and North Yorkshire County Councillor. (District and Borough elections – though not County – will be held on 7th May 2015, alongside the General Election).
  

~~~~~

Pursuant to an anonymous tip-off, I have been examining the public record Registers of Interests of one Lindsay BURR – a North Yorkshire County (NYCC) Councillor and Ryedale District (RDC) Councillor, who has recently abandoned the LibDem Group and presently sits as a Independent member. The circumstances of the split are not entirely clear, though Councillor BURR is reported (by the Gazette Herald) as stating that, after circa 20 years as a LibDem, her values are no longer aligned with those of the party. Councillor Lindsay BURR is a committed opponent of fracking – and for that, I salute her.

It is not known whether or not the LibDem party considers that its values remain aligned with those of Councillor Lindsay BURR – or, indeed, whether or not they are happy to see the back of her. I do not know the political persuasions of my anonymous informant.

An examination of Councillor Lindsay BURR’s Register of Interests at Ryedale District Council, immediately followed by an examination of returns posted on the CompaniesInTheUK.com website, quickly drew my attention to the following apparent discrepancies.

I refer readers now to the following URL-links (Companiesintheuk.com):

https://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/intuitions

https://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/kirkham-henry-performing-arts-cic

The former lists a Lindsay BURR as having been (and continuing to be) a Director of Intuitions Ltd, from 1st September 2011 until the present day.

The latter lists a Lindsay BURR as having been (and continuing to be) a Director of Kirkham Henry Performing Arts CIC, from 24th January 2011 until the present day.

In both cases, Lindsay BURR is listed at the following address:

Sutton Grange
Norton
MALTON
North Yorkshire
YO17 9PU

Local residents assure me that this identifies Lindsay BURR as the Councillor of Ryedale District Council, and this is confirmed by the information provided on the RDC web-site at the following URL-link:

http://democracy.ryedale.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=113

Neither of these Directorships appear on Councillor Lindsay BURR’s current RDC Register of Interests, as displayed on the RDC web-site.

Section 30 of the Localism Act 2011 requires that:

30 Disclosure of pecuniary interests on taking office

(1) A member or co-opted member of a relevant authority must, before the end of 28 days beginning with the day on which the person becomes a member or co-opted member of the authority, notify the authority’s monitoring officer of any disclosable pecuniary interests which the person has at the time when the notification is given.

Section 34 of the Localism Act 2011 requires that:

34 Offences

(1) A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, the person—

(a) fails to comply with an obligation imposed on the person by section 30(1) or 31(2), (3) or (7).

However, this seemingly black-and-white area of law is slightly muddied by the terms of Section 29 (1) & (2) of the Localism Act 2011:

29 Register of interests

(1) The monitoring officer of a relevant authority must establish and maintain a register of interests of members and co-opted members of the authority.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, it is for a relevant authority to determine what is to be entered in the authority’s register.

I have not, as yet, been able to establish the precise terms of under which Ryedale District Council has determined entry rquirements for the authority’s Registers of Interest. However, the DCLG Guidance on “Openness and Transparency on Personal Interests” states that:

A person’s pecuniary interests are their business interests (for example their employment, trade, profession, contracts, or any company with which they are associated) and wider financial interests they might have (for example trust funds, investments, and assets including land and property).

[my emphasis]

For this reason, I have written to RDC CEO Janet WAGGOTT requesting a diligent investigation of the circumstances described above.

In doing so, I would expect that I have now identified myself as the devil incarnate. But, in my view, Councillors who break the law in respect of their duty to declare disclosable interests risk bringing their respective Councils into disrepute. On that basis, one might reasonably expect Monitoring Officers to welcome the assistance of citizen investigative-journalists.

I have also submitted an FOIA request for sight of Councillor Lindsay BURR’s historical RDC Register of Interests, so that I can compare it with her Companies House public record, in order to establish whether or not it has been the practice and policy of Councillor Lindsay BURR to fail to declare disclosable interests.

I may be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge and belief, the RDC Monitoring Officer is none other than the SBC Monitoring Officer Lisa DIXON. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I have received neither acknowledgement nor response from RDC, or from Monitoring Officer Lisa DIXON. Quelle surprise.

I will not bore the reader with the minutiae of the closely parallel set of circumstances obtaining at NYCC, where County Councillor Lindsay BURR’s Register of Interest also appears to be at variance with her directorships, in respect of the same two companies.

Consequently, I have written to NYCC Monitoring Officer Barry KHAN requesting a diligent investigation of the circumstances described above.

I have also submitted an FOIA request to NYCC for sight of Councillor Lindsay BURR’s historical Register of Interests at North Yorkshire County Council, so that I can compare it with her Companies House public record, in order to establish whether or not it has been the practice and policy of Councillor Lindsay BURR to fail to declare disclosable interests there.

NYCC’s Monitoring Officer Barry KHAN has acknowledged my request (indicating that “this is a matter solely for the police to investigate as it is not within the remit of the Standards Committee to investigate potentially criminal offences”).

The NYCC FOIA department has acknowledged my FOIA request.

I hope (and expect) to be able to report further on these concerns in due course.

I have a right to scrutinise the conduct of elected and paid public servants, and to express an opinion on my findings in any medium, regardless of frontiers. (Article 10, Human Rights Act 1998) – a right I exercise in the public interest, without fear or favour.

Meanwhile, it is important to remember the vitally important principle of the presumption of innocence, as defined under Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: